Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blueglass

youth sunday school and gospel topics essays

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I’m not sure what you mean by the first comment.  My understanding is that those 15 billion not only have no need for baptism, but no need for any other ordinance, so no temple work needed...they’re in.

I agree with your second comment, although I’d suggest that my TIC explanation makes more sense than some I’ve heard which were not TIC. 

 

I thought everyone needed to have the saving ordinances?  Christ was baptized and He certainly didn't "need" it.

TIC?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

A little bit like the patronizing justification for polygamy:  more women than men in the CK. :)

More like more men since males die at higher rates when young than females generally speaking when nature takes its course (female rates may go up through infanticide).

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

More like more men since males die at higher rates when young than females generally speaking when nature takes its course (female rates may go up through infanticide).

Could be true.  All I know is that my wife finds it terribly patronizing when people attempt to justify polygamy on the grounds that women are more righteous and that there will be more of them in the CK.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

it seemed to me that Bott was just repeating what had been taught over the pulpit and through official church publications.  He is certainly not to blame.

Not for many decades though.  For a BYU prof not to take into account current approaches to official doctrine and teachings is mind boggling to me.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Could be true.  All I know is that my wife finds it terribly patronizing when people attempt to justify polygamy on the grounds that women are more righteous and that there will be more of them in the CK.

The whole more righteous is bunk, imo.  They can't know intent, they can't know if there are hidden sins, etc. especially if women are taught in a culture not to express less admirable thoughts.

 In essence it is saying gender predetermined how righteous someone is, not personal choice or agency...thus women are more or less forced to be righteous because of our natures, not because we might desire to be disciples of Christ.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I thought everyone needed to have the saving ordinances?  Christ was baptized and He certainly didn't "need" it.

TIC?

They have nothing to be saved from, they are innocent (unaccountable).  The scriptures characterize the baptism of children who have not yet reached the age of accountability (and those adults with developmental issues which prevented them from attaining accountability) as a “solemn mockery before God.”

TIC=tongue in cheek.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not for many decades though.  For a BYU prof not to take into account current approaches to official doctrine and teachings is mind boggling to me.

Where would he have found current approaches to the priesthood and temple ban?  Prior to the gospel topics essay, what was there for him to have used to counter all of the old statements? 

To my knowledge, all we have is the one comment from BRM to ignore everything but I don't think one apostle's statement gets to unilaterally erase decades of prophetic teachings.

I stand by that it is unfair to place any blame on Bott for repeating what had been taught by our prophets.  We can't do that to people.  I believe that the blacks and the priesthood essay came out in 2013 (if memory serves).  Prior to that I am not aware of any official disavowal.  And even the one we have is fairly weak.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

They have nothing to be saved from, they are innocent (unaccountable).  The scriptures characterize the baptism of children who have not yet reached the age of accountability (and those adults with developmental issues which prevented them from attaining accountability) as a “solemn mockery before God.”

TIC=tongue in cheek.

This is a good point but at some point those children will (in resurrected form) but beyond the age of accountability.  I'm fairly confident that we perform temple ordinances (except sealing to spouse) for everyone, regardless of their age of death.  Anyone able to confirm?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is a good point but at some point those children will (in resurrected form) but beyond the age of accountability.  I'm fairly confident that we perform temple ordinances (except sealing to spouse) for everyone, regardless of their age of death.  Anyone able to confirm?

We don't perform any ordinances other than sealing to parents for children who die before the age of 8.  You can't print temple cards for them.

Determine when ordinances may not be needed. [7.3.2]

FamilySearch indicates when ordinances are not needed, such as in the following situations:

  • Children born after their mother was sealed to her husband in a temple are born in the covenant. They do not need to receive the ordinance of sealing to parents.

  • No baptism or endowment is performed for a child who died before age eight (see Moroni 8:8–12; see also Merlin R. Lybbert, “The Special Status of Children,” Ensign, May 1994, 31–32). Only a sealing to parents is performed for such children. If the child was sealed to parents while he or she was living or if the child was born in the covenant, no vicarious ordinances are performed.

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We don't perform any ordinances other than sealing to parents for children who die before the age of 8.  You can't print temple cards for them.

Determine when ordinances may not be needed. [7.3.2]

FamilySearch indicates when ordinances are not needed, such as in the following situations:

  • Children born after their mother was sealed to her husband in a temple are born in the covenant. They do not need to receive the ordinance of sealing to parents.

  • No baptism or endowment is performed for a child who died before age eight (see Moroni 8:8–12; see also Merlin R. Lybbert, “The Special Status of Children,” Ensign, May 1994, 31–32). Only a sealing to parents is performed for such children. If the child was sealed to parents while he or she was living or if the child was born in the covenant, no vicarious ordinances are performed.

Thank you.  Very interesting.  I never realized that and assumed that they still needed to be endowed.  But I guess not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, rockpond said:

I thought the Bott interview was before that essay was released.

it seemed to me that Bott was just repeating what had been taught over the pulpit and through official church publications.  He is certainly not to blame.

I disagree that a lack of correlation is the problem.  Prophets who teach things that we later determine to be false is the heart of the issue.

The teachings I think you are referring never carried the official Church imprimatur. They were always just theories. Had Correlation been in place as it is today, I think they would have been largely curtailed. Lack of correlation is indeed the problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The teachings I think you are referring never carried the official Church imprimatur. They were always just theories. Had Correlation been in place as it is today, I think they would have been largely curtailed. Lack of correlation is indeed the problem.

 

Revisionist history. The “theories” were taught by prophets and apostles, supported by scripture, for many decades.  What is taught by multiple prophets and apostles and backed by scripture is doctrine.  Not theory. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Revisionist history. The “theories” were taught by prophets and apostles, supported by scripture, for many decades.  What is taught by multiple prophets and apostles and backed by scripture is doctrine.  Not theory. 

On the contrary, the Church as an institution has never provided an official reason for the priesthood ban. 

From the FairMormon website:

 

Quote

 

The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban

The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban, although a number of Church leaders offered theories as to the reason for its existence. The Church currently provides the following background information regarding the initiation of the ban in its Gospel Topics essay "Race and the Priesthood":

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. [3]

Given that none of these theories regarding the reason for the ban is accepted today, Church members have generally taken one of three perspectives:

  • Some members assume that the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his successors until President Kimball. However, Joseph Smith did ordain several men of African descent to the priesthood.
  • Some believe that the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young. The evidence supports the idea that Brigham Young implemented it, but there is no record of an actual revelation having been received regarding it.
  • Some believe that the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended.

The difficulty in deciding between these options arises because:

  • there is no contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but
  • many early members nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation; and
  • priesthood ordination of African blacks was a rare event, which became even more rare with time.

The history behind the practice in the modern Church of withholding the priesthood based on race is described well by Lester Bush in a 1984 book.[4] A good timeline can be found at FairMormon's BlackLDS site: FairMormon link.

Many leaders have indicated that the Church does not know why the ban was in place

  • Gordon B. Hinckley in an interview:
Q: So in retrospect, was the Church wrong in that [not ordaining blacks]?
A [Pres. Hinckley]: No, I don't think it was wrong. It, things, various things happened in different periods. There's a reason for them.
Q: What was the reason for that?
A: I don't know what the reason was. But I know that we've rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.[5]
  • Elder Dallin H. Oaks:
If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, 'Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,' you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.
...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.
...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.[6]
  • Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:
One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...
It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.[7]
  • Elder Alexander B. Morrison:
We do not know.[8]

 

When Elder Holland says that "it probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know," I believe that's what would have happened had Correlation been in place as it is today. Cooler heads would have prevailed, and there would have been no unwise theories put forward that needed to be disavowed later. So I earnestly disagree with you when you assert that "a lack of correlation is [not] the problem." Consider what happened to Professor Bott in an age of Correlation.
Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, the Church as an institution has never provided an official reason for the priesthood ban. 

From the FairMormon website:

 

When Elder Holland says that "it probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know," I believe that's what would have happened had Correlation been in place as it is today. Cooler heads would have prevailed, and there would have been no unwise theories put forward that needed to be disavowed later. So I earnestly disagree with you when you assert that "a lack of correlation is [not] the problem." Consider what happened to Professor Bott in an age of Correlation.

Notice  every single one of those quotes occurred AFTER tthe ban was lifte.  I certainly heard general authorities explain to me as a missionary the teaching that they were not yet worthy to receive the priesthood. 

I agree.  Revisionist history.  Reasons for the ban were constantly expressed by church leaders up until the ban was lifted. Only after that, was the latest stream of talks about "we don't know."  If you can find one single quote from a general authority before the ban was lifted stating the "we don't know" I would be totally impressed.  Just one.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/28/2019 at 2:25 AM, changed said:

I think I may [have] saved the day - I asked them if their teachers in school told them all of the answers (I happen to be a teacher too) - we all agreed that the best teachers did not tell students answers to test questions, or answers to many things.  - What is the point of school? - the point is to learn how to think for yourself, and figure answers out for yourself.  end of discussion.... with a bunch of 13-14yo's smiling and really happy that they were free to think and answer questions for themselves :D  I guess everyone can debate if that was a good direction to send them in or not - works for me.

The discovery that the students experience is guided. Unfortunately, the Church has a history of guided non-discovery. It's only recently that it has been more forthcoming with information.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So Correlation is supposed to do what?  Correct the false teachings of our prophets, apostles, and scripture?

I wish that you and others could understand how damaging this revisionist history is to the faith of members.  The Race and the Priesthood Gospel Topics essay caused more of my family and acquaintances to lose faith in the role of the prophet than any other single document.

There are countless examples of prophets and apostles teaching reasons for the ban.  They didn't say:  "hey, I have a theory...".  They taught from their position of authority and they supported their position in scripture.

Since we're discussing what a BYU religion professor said on the matter, let's look at what an ordained apostle of the Lord taught to teachers at BYU:

"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there.

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

That was Elder Mark E Peterson in 1954 at Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level.

While not speaking to the general body of members, you know that I could continue to cite other prophets and apostles that did and that taught the same ideas.  Elder Peterson did not create these teaching of his own.  And there is a reason that many wonderful and faithful members believed them (and some still do).  I was certainly taught these reasons as I grew up in the church in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

So, I'll go back to my question at the top of this post:  What is it that Correlation is supposed to do?  Go back and erase past teachings from prophets and apostles?  Is it supposed to teach them the true doctrine before they teach something that is false?  Is Correlation supposed to correct them?

As @california boy indicated, we have many examples of prophets and apostles pre-1978 who seemed to believe that they knew the reasons the Lord had instituted the ban (even though, as you cited, we don't know the origin).  How would Correlation at the time have fixed that?  And where does the Lord suggest that His prophets and apostles need to be monitored by Correlation so that they don't teach false principles?

 

It does feel a bit like gaslighting when members try to tell me that these doctrines were not taught from the pulpit, and in our classrooms, often quoting statements by apostles and prophets.  I grew up in the church in the 60's when the church was probably at its zenith in justifying the discrimination against blacks using these very statements and saying that the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse.  Now some are trying to say that never happened from any official sourse and were just rumors spread by rogue members.  Sounds more like selective remembering to me.

It is easy for me to move on from past mistakes.  It is much harder to move on when denial of past history is trying to tell us such teachings never happened by church leadership.  The trouble is, I remember as a young missionary regurgetating these teachings to those that questioned the ban on the priesthood.  Something I deeply regret, and also something that was what we were told to say.  We had district meetings and zone meetings telling us exactly how to deal with that question in particular, because it was a very big issue during my time serving in 1968.  For me, it is like someone trying to tell me the Vietnam War didn't really happen when I clearly remember it taking place.

Edited by california boy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, california boy said:

It does feel a bit like gaslighting when members try to tell me that these doctrines were not taught from the pulpit, and in our classrooms, often quoting statements by apostles and prophets.  I grew up in the church in the 60's when the church was probably at its zenith in justifying the discrimination against blacks using these very statements and saying that the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse.  Now some are trying to say that never happened from any official sourse and were just rumors spread by rogue members.  Sounds more like selective remembering to me.

It is easy for me to move on from past mistakes.  It is much harder to move on when denial of past history is trying to tell us such teachings never happened by church leadership.  The trouble is, I remember as a young missionary regurgetating these teachings to those that questioned the ban on the priesthood.  Something I deeply regret, and also something that was what we were told to say.  We had district meetings and zone meetings telling us exactly how to deal with that question in particular, because it was a very big issue during my time serving in 1968.  For me, it is like someone trying to tell me the Vietnam War didn't really happen when I clearly remember it taking place.

And there is a part of me that feels I should just accept this revisionism because I'm confident the Church will one day follow the same pattern to justify its future full acceptance of gay marriage and same gender sealings.  There could very well be some future version of Scott arguing that if the prophets and apostles had just been more Correlated, members would have understood that God wasn't opposed to gay marriage, we just didn't yet have the further light we needed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, california boy said:

Notice  every single one of those quotes occurred AFTER tthe ban was lifte.  I certainly heard general authorities explain to me as a missionary the teaching that they were not yet worthy to receive the priesthood. 

I agree.  Revisionist history.  Reasons for the ban were constantly expressed by church leaders up until the ban was lifted. Only after that, was the latest stream of talks about "we don't know."  If you can find one single quote from a general authority before the ban was lifted stating the "we don't know" I would be totally impressed.  Just one.

That there had been unofficial theories circulating — theories that have now been disavowed — is a given that no one here has disputed. The point is that the Church has never given an official reason for the ban. 

The thing about personal  anecdotes is that they can be impossible to document. I don’t know when you served your mission or what General Authorities talked to you or what precisely they said or how accurately you are remembering it. I can only counter with my personal recollection. 

President Oaks attests in the quote I provided that he “decided a long time ago that [he] had faith in the command but had no faith in the reasons suggested for it.” That describes precisely my attitude in 1978, the year the revelation was received. I have a clear recollection of those days. I was a returned missionary enrolled at BYU. It was not a particularly unique attitude. It was common among Church members I knew of who had any opinion at all on the matter. 

President Oaks was BYU President at the time and, we now know, was on a trajectory that would eventually bring him to membership in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and ultimately to a position as first counselor in the First Presidency and as president of the quorum, one heartbeat away from becoming president of the Church. It makes no sense that he would be harboring an attitude that was out of harmony with the official position of the Church. 

So I’m issuing a counter challenge to you: Cite “just one” official statement from the Church that would have bound President Oaks or me or any other Latter-day Saint in the 1970s to a belief that black Church members were, in your words, “not yet worthy to hold the priesthood.” If you and rockpond are insisting that was the official teaching or doctrine of the Church, then I submit it is you, not I, who are engaging in “revisionist history.” 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I’m issuing a counter challenge to you: Cite “just one” official statement from the Church that would have bound President Oaks or me or any other Latter-day Saint in the 1970s to a belief that black Church members were, in your words, “not yet worthy to hold the priesthood.” If you and rockpond are insisting that was the official teaching or doctrine of the Church, then I submit it is you, not I, who are engaging in “revisionist history.” 

That's hilarious... dodge @california boy's request to show him just one citation and then issue a counter challenge.

I have not claimed that any member of the church in the 1970's was bound to any particular belief about black Church members.  I've not even raised such an issue for discussion, so I'll politely pass on your challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And there is a part of me that feels I should just accept this revisionism because I'm confident the Church will one day follow the same pattern to justify its future full acceptance of gay marriage and same gender sealings.  There could very well be some future version of Scott arguing that if the prophets and apostles had just been more Correlated, members would have understood that God wasn't opposed to gay marriage, we just didn't yet have the further light we needed.

The obvious difference is that the official teaching of the Church is that homosexual behavior is a serious transgression and that this teaching will never change. Believing the contrary places you and others squarely out of harmony with the position of the Church on this matter. 

By contrast, in 1978, disbelieving the theories that had been suggested as to the reason for the priesthood and temple restrictions would not have placed me or President Oaks or anyone else out of harmony with the position of the Church. Why? Because the Church had not provided an official statement about the reason for the ban. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's hilarious... dodge @california boy's request to show him just one citation and then issue a counter challenge.

I have not claimed that any member of the church in the 1970's was bound to any particular belief about black Church members.  I've not even raised such an issue for discussion, so I'll politely pass on your challenge.

You have accused me of engaging in revisionist history in that I said the Church never provided an official reason for the ban. So, logically, you must believe that the Church did give an official reason that was binding on the members. Who is the one who is really “dodging” here?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have accused me of engaging in revisionist history in that I said the Church never provided an official reason for the ban. So, logically, you must believe that the Church did give an official reason that was binding on the members. Who is the one who is really “dodging” here?

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you state "the Church", but the church leaders definitely provided reasons and teachings.  Here are a couple of examples (but I could post many more):

Quote

 

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61. Italics in original).

“NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:65-66. Italics in original).

 

Quote

“Kindly see chapters 15 and 16, in The Way to Perfection, for further light in relation to the reason why the Negro cannot receive the priesthood. In brief, it is as follows: Because of transgression in the first estate which deprives him in this second estate. Since Cain slew his brother Abel in order to obtain all the rights of priesthood to descend through his lineage, the Lord decreed that the children of Cain should not have the privilege of bearing the priesthood until Abel had posterity who could have the priesthood and that will have to be in the far distant future. When this is accomplished on some other world, then the restrictions will be removed from the children of Cain who have been true in this ‘second’ estate” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions 2:188)

.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have accused me of engaging in revisionist history in that I said the Church never provided an official reason for the ban. So, logically, you must believe that the Church did give an official reason that was binding on the members. Who is the one who is really “dodging” here?

Please start by responding to the questions in my post here:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71806-youth-sunday-school-and-gospel-topics-essays/?do=findComment&comment=1209902906

And again, my position is that the prophets and apostle of the church taught reasons for the ban.  I did not say those reasons are binding. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...